Social Construction of Technology
The Social Construction of Technology (abbreviated: SCOT ) is a variant of social constructivism, which deals with technology genesis, that is the development of techniques. SCOT builds on theories of the sociology of knowledge, which has developed the social constructivism added ( Berger & Luckmann ) and in the sociology of science David Bloor and Harry Collins. The theory came up in the 1980s and is now quite common; known representatives are Trevor Pinch and Wiebe E. Bijker.
Basic assumption
Each technique development is seen as a social process. This means that less technical or engineering- principles (eg: good design or durability ) For development and success of a technology is decisive, but rather social processes (eg, attributions of meaning or group dynamics ).
Basic concepts
Each technique, the core assumption of SCOT is socially constructed. Constructed she is in a controversial interplay of relevant social groups who see the future technology as a solution to a problem. Both interests and problems are different from group to group. Accordingly, the various groups and different conceptions of the emerging technology, they organize their various meanings. This is crucial, because it depends on exactly these group-specific meanings, whether and by whom the finished art is seen as working or a failure.
Is it still makes sense to speak of an object when it varies in the desired form, function and meaning - depending on who you ask? Seen Sozialkonstruktivistisch not, instead, one starts from the Pluralism of Artifacts ( variety of things). Possible such diversity is the fundamental ambiguities of the things that makes them not only to interpretation, but also in need of interpretation - they are interpretive flexibility. This flexibility of the things is the gateway for non-technical influences (eg: politics, religion, culture), which are referred to as SCOT resist context (extended context). In this context, it is again useful, even " magical techniques " to accept, as the anthropologist Arnold Gehlen has already done in the 1940s.
Technology development appears as a contentious dispute ( see also figuration ) to compete in the different influences of the context contradict each other. The interpretative flexibility is gradually disappearing, the subject wins in a similar evolutionary process of variation and selection to uniqueness. At the end of the initial ambiguity and diversity of the resulting has reduced to a ' surviving ' object. The debate is closed ( cf. the sociology of knowledge ). The arguments which lead to the closure stage, must in no case be technically good or even correct. Even if the technique actually solves the problem or not, is not a question of something like " technical rationality ," but a matter of faith: The decisive factor is simply by SCOT whether the individuals believe that their problem was solved. And who interspersed his faith as the 'right', is a question of power. "Technology " that appears as a thoroughly social, with a formulation of the sociology of technology as a " social relationship ", and in systems theory even as contingent.
An example of application
... The history of the air-filled bicycle tire, as described by Bijker (1995 ) is described: The inventor John Boyd Dunlop was originally conceived him as "anti- vibration device" ( suspension) to increase comfort. As such, he did technically, but does not work socially - because cycling of the then dominant group of " young men of means and nerve" ( risk-taking young men), was understood as a high risk sport ( resist context: culture). More comfortable, so easier to handle sports equipment were prestigious reducing. Only a driver with a tire drove away their competitors ' hard school ' in races, have changed this because the ' comfort tires ' for "high speed device" ( high-speed medium ) was reinterpreted now ( the interpretive flexibility ). Historians who have dealt with the history of the bicycle, this representation Bijkers contradict but at crucial points. For example, Dunlop had the pneumatic tire designed from the outset as an accelerating agent, and this also so stated in his patent.
An application problem
Is ... the identification of relevant social groups. " Relevant" should ideally be " involved " in the sense of or even " affected " understood. In fact, it is inevitable that even " involved " in the case of the empirical work unexpectedly one ( influential or influential low ) power is. Then the notorious ' SCOT 'problem' of missing groups formed ( cf. the criticisms of Winner, 1993). These are groups that had indeed lifted up their voice, but lack of noticeable power were ignored and are therefore empirically very difficult to track down. Hope for the future makes since at best the Internet with its almost anarchic low access threshold.